Happiness is a warm gun, right?

I happen to have a California concealed weapon permit, commonly known in the applicable vernacular as a ‘CCW’. The two year permit’s validity is about to expire, so I went about the business of renewing my permit, attempting to undertake the legally specified ‘refresher’ course of about 8 hours that mandates range requalification with the permit weapon.

Therein lies a tale.

As almost anyone reading this already knows, California has some of the toughest gun laws in the entire nation, all proposed and enacted by the dominant leftist liberal progressive Senate and Assembly representatives who presently plague us with their political correctness paradigm, and voted into effect by a population that is notorious for being so far left of center on almost all social and economic issues of relevance that their thought processes (such as they are) have completely vanished on the far leftist horizon.

Of course, these same leftist liberals responsible for our tough gun laws don’t quite ‘get’ the incontestably logical message that neither 1) the presence of guns among us, nor 2) the law-abiding, responsible citizens who agree to essentially have their entire personal dossier vetted by law enforcement agencies in order to be granted a CCW, are responsible for the plethora of exponentially increasing acts of extreme lawlessness (read: gun-related crimes) that stat-keepers love to keep clucking their tongues over. Incredibly enough, these simple (if well-intended) souls are completely unable to grasp the fact that violent (i.e. gun-related) crimes are ACTUALLY committed by bottom-dwelling, scum-sucking misanthropes who are entirely bereft of even the slightest vestige of social self-responsibility (and probably have the collective mentality of a retarded sea slug).

They seem to think that the mere presence of guns in private hands causes violent crime, hence their misguided efforts to keep ALL guns out of EVERYONE’S hands…law-abiding, socially responsible citizens and execrable social pariahs alike. No guns, no crime? Right? Very WRONG.

Such grossly ignorant misconceptions simply stun me upon reflection, since it’s pretty clear to anyone who is able to bring two brain cells to bear on the subject that criminals bent on committing violent crimes DO NOT play by the rules the liberal left presumes everyone implicitly agrees to. Duh! Yet, California continues to unnecessarily complicate even the legally sanctioned, law-enforcement approved processes whereby our responsible, law abiding citizens are statutorily allowed to apply for LEGAL self-protection (CCW).

In my case, as a resident of XXX (CA), one initiates the CCW permit application process by scheduling an appointment with the local County Sheriff’s Department (in whose hands the granting and/or denial of private citizen CCW permits are left). Doesn’t sound challenging, does it? Hah! Once at the Sheriff’s website, for unstated reasons, that authority advises all would-be applicants that “There are presently no appointments available” to initiate the CCW permit process and to “Check back from time to time to determine if there are any that are being offered.” Great way to subtlely control the process (i.e. staunch the flow of applications) if it’s impossible to obtain the necessary initiating appointment!

As stipulated, I am required to requalify with my weapon of choice (permits are limited to the weapon you range-qualify with only) before my permit expires and if I cannot obtain an appointment to fulfill the process before the deadline, that effectively makes my CCW permit null & void. In such a case, the only way to ‘renew’ the permit is to begin the entire (initial application) process over again, from start to finish, and trust me, folks, it’s a very complex, involved and bureaucratically elaborate one, to say the least! You see, there’s only a small window within which to complete your reapplication at the end of the two-year term of validity (recertification) before your certificate becomes null & void. And if you can’t get an appointment with the Sheriff in order to timely comply with the process you are, well, as the old saying goes, SOL.

And all of these hurdles are thrown at perfectly law-abiding, honest, upstanding and moral citizens whose worst anti-social act might perhaps be a speeding ticket, obtained 10 years ago for going 35 in a 25 MPH zone.

Meanwhile, the REAL criminal scum-bags who plague us with their violence, substance abuse and gang-related criminality laugh up their noses (or what’s left of them after long-term drug use) at these ‘legal’ restrictions on gun ownership and obtain their guns in any one of hundreds of illegal ways. Thus some of us Dudley Do-Rights struggle to obtain a simple .38 6-shooter revolver or small 9mm, 6-shot automatic for extreme-case/last resort self-defense, while the bad guys, cholos ladrones and ‘gangstas’ easily obtain nice little full-automatic assault type rifles with high-capacity magazines holding up to 100 rounds.

Hello?! They don’t play by the legal rules, do they? Therefore WTF do all the leftist liberal bleeding heart PC clones think in believing that their anal retentive gun regulations and policies are making a whit of difference in controlling the incidence of violent (e.g. gun-related) crime that everyone (including me) is so concerned about? Again DUH!

Naturally it isn’t all that simple, however. Arming private citizens with personal weapons (concealable or not) is only a relatively ineffectual band-aide placed on a gaping mortal wound that defies effective treatment. And why is this so, you might well ask?

Because guns are never the answer to resolving extremely antisocial behavioral interactions. This was made quite clear by the instructors from whom I received my weapons training (for the CCW process). The first rule they teach you in ANY truly well-developed and carefully considered gun-use course is that self-defense with a gun (even a ‘legal’ one) is only a last-ditch, ‘court-of-last-resort’ measure…and then only under extreme circumstances. The first reaction to any perceived threat of personal bodily harm is to remove yourself from harm’s way just as fast as you safely can. In other words, your legs are your recommended first line of defense against a threat. Competent gun instructors will all unanimously agree that even if you are carrying a concealed weapon, you are both morally and legally required to first get away from the perceived threat by any means possible. Even if in so doing you look more like a fleeing chicken than a Rhode Island Red in full flight mode! Self-esteem, ego and machismo, in other words, must necessarily be cast away altogether as you quickly gallop Shank’s Mare to safety (i.e. run away as fast as you can).

Only if you have no alternative or are backed into a corner from which there is no reasonable escape may you even CONSIDER pulling out that concealed weapon and firing it. And if you do so, you are still potentially at risk and liable for any collateral damage that firing your weapon may cause (such as an innocent wounded bystander, etc.).

Given the near-fascistic California leftist liberal progressive sentiments prevalent throughout this state, that only applies to the immediate criminal consequences that may obtain through use of your ‘legal’ weapon (under erstwhile ‘legal’ circumstances). Even should you be so fortunate as to drop a violent criminal with your weapon, perhaps killing him, you may still be sued in a civil court of law by the cretin’s survivors (i.e. ‘family’) for ‘wrongful death’. Should the courts agree with the civil suit filers, you may then become personally liable for damages and costs that can exceed several millions of dollars, believe it or not!

OK. Picture this: Here’s some low-lifer who has a criminal record a mile-long, who has a rap sheet of violent and domestic crimes several pages in length, who just tried (unsuccessfully) to rob you at gun-point. You somehow managed to remain calm and composed and when he was least expecting it, you pulled out your weapon and shot him through the heart (surely a minor miracle in itself, given the extremes of adrenalin rampaging through your body at the given moment). Right. Dead scum-sucker at your feet, problem solved. Nope. Sorry. That might work in Texas…or in Florida…but that’s not the way they play the game in California.

In California the loser in such a hypothetical face-off will always be the so-called law-abiding citizen who has obtained a legal permit to carry a registered concealed weapon and who had used it to defend the personal safety of himself or his family members. Either by virtue of a successful criminal suit against the permit holder or a subsequent successful civil suit brought about against him by the criminal’s family (who will most assuredly go on the 5PM daily news and ‘speak out’ against the unfair reaction taken against their dearly-loved dead relative; you can thank your sentimentally screwed-up media for that almost daily occurrence in the coverage of ‘local events’). Go figure, eh?

For this reason, to a large extent, obtaining a legal permit to carry a concealed weapon is only the tip of a costly and consequential figurative iceberg. The second most important step for a holder of a legal CCW is to take out gun-owner insurance policies against such an almost certain post-event consequence. These policies are quite costly and even then not all costs a shooting incident might engender may be covered. If you have no suitable gun liability insurance (god forbid!), the loss of a civil-suit could result in the total ruination of your entire existence, the loss of all your assets, loss of your bank accounts, property and/or holdings, all being payable to the family of this bag of criminal s**t who tried to rob YOU at gunpoint, starting the entire incident! Such is the wonderful state of affairs we have created in politically correct California, folks.

Now I’m sure you have already asked yourself “Why would anyone want to carry a concealed weapon in the first place?” The answer to that can be easily determined when you examine the already over-stretched, underfunded and under-staffed urban law enforcement agencies we entrust with our public safety.

It’s an accepted fact that even a 911 call will not result in a timely metroplitan police response unless there is a threat of IMMEDIATE personal bodily harm of the highest order. And even then, that’s assuming that you have the time or luxury to actually dial up 911 and make a call. Even after such a call has been made, the chances of law enforcement officers (‘LEOs’) showing up in a timely manner are slim indeed, since chances are good that they are already tasked with other, similar calls. For all of these reasons, it is a very prudent decision to keep some sort of effective personal defense weapon at home, close at hand (but safely secured from children, infants and/or others). [Not an easy thing to do, actually, if you do have children, since having a gun closely accessible implies easy access…often by children inadvertently, through simple carelessness and/or bad luck. Keeping all guns in a securely locked container/vault, etc…the recommended course of action…sounds great on the face of things, as an effective measure to protect children, but that doesn't make it easy to quickly access a weapon in a home emergency…such as a late-night break-in.]

But that’s at home. In public or away from the home, it is increasingly common for violent criminal acts to occur in all venues, day or night. Back in the day, violent crimes committed with a firearm were extremely rare. While hold-ups were sometimes attempted with the display of a gun, almost all perpetrators of such acts rarely actually discharged that weapon during the attempt. In our modern age, today’s youthful criminals appear to have entirely lost any such ‘moral’ conscience over discharging their weapons capriciously and in far too many cases actually seem to enjoy shooting and/or killing innocent victims gratuitously (likely thanks to a plethora of violent movies and video games).

This may well be a product of the extreme violence that the contemporary Latino drug-trade has engendered, wherein the value of human life has been reduced to less than zero…a hallmark, by the way, of the sort of ultra-violence characterised by the Mexican and South American drug cartels in pursuit of their ‘market share’ of drug wealth.

With the increasing incursion of this Latino originated gang-violence (linked to drugs), there is no longer such a thing as ‘non-lethal’ violence in the conduct of most criminal acts. The savagery of these thugs has reached new levels of incomprehensibility to the point where the forces of law and order that form one of the principal cornerstones of American democracy have now become stretched to the breaking point. We may only be thankful that most criminals are not rocket scientists, or they would soon realise that they could basically overwhelm an entire major urban area's police forces if they were somehow able to consolidate and unify their actions, so as to act in concert, simultaneously. Brrrr.

As one consequence, even though they are undoubtedly hamstrung by the ever vigilant forces of the leftist liberal progressive left, I would imagine that most LEOs secretly fantasise over the idea of a responsibly, legally armed public. While no one LEo spokesperson could ever publically declare this to in fact be so, it is likely that such an idea has considerable appeal (perhaps on a subliminal level) to a great many in our functionally hobbled public safety organizations (i.e. law enforcement agencies).

Naturally enough, however, a poorly trained and poorly prepared armed public could also constitute a horrific hazard to duely appointed policemen, also. There are no easy solutions to this pressing problem of how to effectively deal with rampant violent crime, unfortunately, and old fashioned 'vigilante justice is just as unacceptable as criminal violence.

OK. These are just a few considerations to keep in mind as 1) the violent crime rate continues to soar, and 2) public sentiment on criminal matters seems to reside largely left of center thanks to sophomoric corollaries of ‘diversity’ politics that tilt undue partisan bias towards supposed ‘minorities’ (read: people of color, etc.).

But none of this still answers the question of why our society, with its over 2.2 million incarcerated individuals, has become such a mindlessly violent one in the past 30 or 40 years?

The answer to that question is, I strongly feel, directly linked with the so-called entertainment industry, located principally in Hollywood, California, where production of unspeakably violent films, television programs and computer games reap billions of dollars of income for their producers each year. In a climate where movies seem almost to contend with each other to see which one can contain more raw gore, bloody mayhem and cold, cruel callousness, we can pin a lot of the blame for our national glorification of extreme violence (and violence created with guns in particular) right on the producers of these travesties of ‘entertainment’.

Of course, since ours is a theoretical ‘democracy', there’s no law against studios churning these things out by the hundreds each year, and studios’ public relations firms will constantly hasten to reassure us that there’s no hard statistical evidence linking levels of increased public violence to the latest macho blood-fest film. That, of course, is absolute horse exhaust of the most noxious sort, since while many (if not MOST) of us are emotionally mature enough and psychologically stable enough to know and understand the vast difference between actual reality and purest fantasy, far too many less well-equipped morons (usually youthful) out there DO have difficulty with the blurred lines that separate these two extremes.

It is a well-demonstrated and generally accepted fact, for example, that the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy varies considerably with intelligence and maturity. Since the human mind is still not fully developed until about age 30, those under that age who are marginal in terms of either education of basic IQ are quite extraordinarily vulnerable and susceptible to misrepresentations of reality…such as are nicely typified by extremely violent ‘action’ films (and video games). Moreover, as many psychological studies have shown, when extreme violence is ‘commonised’ and becomes routine rather than exceptional (and socially unacceptable), individuals in this category are routinely confused on a whole range of perceptional levels by portrayals of extreme violence as constituting ‘normal’ human interaction. Any psychologist would quickly affirm this fact and attest that immature human sensibilities rather easily confuse grossly aberrant behavior with acceptable social behavior, embracing it as if it were interactably ‘normal.’

Producers of this film genre in Hollywood are perfectly aware of these dynamics and deliberately pander to this vulnerability by feeding it with cinematic exaggerations of behavioral aberrance that are quite intentionally intended to captivate immature (perhaps ‘arrested’) personalities, thereby generating substantial corporate profits in so doing.

Thus, we can blame these corporate cultivators of immature fantasy for helping foster catastrophic misapprehensions by the mediocre-minded among us of what passes for acceptable human interaction. Since all of this is palmed off as merely ‘entertainment’ and cinematic amusement, the three brain cell morons in our midst (and they outnumber us by a substantial margin) uncritically accept these prompts, equating extreme brutality and ‘gun-violence’ with desirable male patterns of behavior.

And while it’s probably OK for someone like me to watch a violent ‘action’ movie without the risk of mistaking the action in it for acceptable social aggression, there are millions of marginally bright younger individuals (read: teenaged dumb-s**ts) in the population who will suffer the severe consequences of confused reality that lead to overt personal violence not all that different from that depicted in these ‘action fantasies’.

OK, thanks a lot, Hollywood! Personally speaking, since it’s almost impossible to eradicate the entire human species (as a ‘failed’ evolutionary lifeform, much as Artur Schopenhauer regarded our species), I’d personally settle for dropping a 100 MT nuke on all of Southern California, haven of pestilential ‘Hollywood’, with all its profit-driven perversions of normal behavioral portrayals.

[Note: The ‘Hollywood’ phenomenon is, by the way, another excellent example of how the concept of ‘democracy’ has been perversely twisted by commercialism and forces of capitalistic profiteering to justify their manipulative distortions of normative social conduct. In our brave new world of ‘American style’ democracy, any and all moral obligation to help immature youth (as well as ‘arrested juvenile adults’) achieve appropriate understandings on socially acceptable lifestyle roles has been coldly set aside for the purpose of generating wealth (at the expense of all the previously mentioned three brain cell morons that predominate in our culture). Again, a perfect example of exploitation of the marginally bright masses by the powerful, wealthier members of our society…if that doesn’t constitute capitalistic ‘subjugation’, nothing does.]

Returning to the matter of guns, gun violence and our subcultural worship of puerile machismo savagery & brutality, I should make a point of revealing that I personally have never been fond of guns per se, myself. As with most things in life that have great potential to exert serious harm on human beings, they ought to and should be tightly regulated. That isn’t the same as banning them outright and/or making it difficult for responsible, socially altruistic and morally balanced individuals to obtain them. It simply presupposes that a person who has been given the privilege of possessing one (for the home or for concealed carry) should be thoroughly vetted by appropriate regulatory agencies. Since guns of all kinds may be and are used to commit atrocious acts of criminal savagery, their circulation and/or accessibility should be rightfully limited to only those whose lives are free and clear of demonstrated antisocial behavior. In that spirit, tests and qualifying assays of/for all applicants are perfectly justified, in my opinion.

We wouldn’t give America’s nuclear weapons ‘go-codes’ to a president clearly demonstrating mental instability (please don’t throw out any leftist liberal progressive aspersions that the new President-Elect is in that category, thank you very much…I’ve heard it all a thousand times before) and we should similarly act to limit access to dangerous weapons to only those who can demonstrate their own mental stability and positive social intentions. Unfortunately this contravenes, as any knee-jerk patriot will quickly attest, specific American rights ‘guaranteed’ in our constitution, so it would be like pulling teeth from ducks to change the existing status quo in this regard.

What we can do, of course, is put all the liberal bleeding-heart sentiment about ‘bad, nasty old guns’ on the shelf and recognise that it would be wise and even prudent to ALLOW personal ownership and access to guns by those who are willing to submit their lives to a miniscule inspection of orientation, attitude, outlook, background and intent. In other words ‘REGULATION’. But in old ‘lefty’ California, such wise counsel doesn’t stand a chance. Hence the present mess in which it is extremely difficult for law-abiding, socially responsible and well-intended citizens to legally obtain guns, whilst the marginally bright and antisocial miscreants continue to have absolutely no difficulty in obtaining ferociously hazardous automatic weapons on a whim (...chu got lots of dinero? Take your pick, amigo!).

As for my own reasons for completing a concealed weapons course and obtaining CCW certification, I did it largely as an exercise in personal research. I have absolutely no intention of carrying a concealed around with me on a casual or everyday basis. Personally, I recognise the fact that not only am I not proficient enough to carry one with the intent to use it (for self-defense if necessary), I am also of the opinion that the potential adverse consequences of gun use (any gun use) are so substantial that any thought of using a gun in public under ANY circumstances whatsoever is unacceptable. Therefore, my primary motivation for undergoing the CCW process (in California) is mainly to have done it and in so doing, to better understand the mentality extant on both sides of the question.

In my own home, I have absolutely no hesitation to use a gun against anyone foolish enough to invade my personal dwelling, so as to protect my family, but in public? No thank you. I’ll take my chances just like the vast majority of unarmed people in the congested metropolitan area I live in.

Aside from the literalists who ignorantly insist that the US Constitution assures (guarantees) them the right to keep and possess firearms (due to a gross failure to accept or understand the fact that the Constitution reflected quite different realities applicable back in the 1700s), we can thank the very nature of how America came into being during the 1800s for our wildly chaotic, modern-day ‘gun culture’.

In particular, the undying rough-tough traditions of the ‘Old West Frontier’ ethic continue to have a profound impact on American attitudes towards guns and far too many Americans still subconsciously embrace the simplistic idea of ‘frontier justice’ (i.e. resolution of arguments through use of the gun) today. Of course most of them are not rocket-scientists by any stretch of the imagination and far too many of them perversely celebrate the ignorance of ‘red-neck’ folklore, with its external show of masculine machismo that Hollywood constantly hyper-reinforces in every ‘action’ film it releases.

Combine that with underclass feelings of vulnerability and exploitation (poor Blacks, Latinos, et al) and with a newly emerging sense of poor White insecurity as America increasingly embraces ‘diversity’, and you have a perfect storm scenario in which extreme violence predominates as a quick and dirty ‘solution’ to these perceived threats by the less complex among us.

I hate to harp on an old familiar refrain, but German philosopher Artur Schopenhauer recognised all too well that it is impossible to ‘save’ humanity from itself, given the dual nature (good/bad) that all of us harbor, knowingly or not. And since like a Pitbull dog, human beings can snap in a split-second from rational behavior to full-on violence (under the right circumstances), guns and similar lethal weapons are a very serious matter that needs to be addressed by careful (but well thought-through) regulation.

Sadly, just about every important function engaged in by human beings is not presently as carefully regulated. You don’t have to take an IQ test to obtain a driving license (or even a language competency test). You don’t need to pass a qualifying examination to marry and breed dozens of marginally bright and subsequently neglected children (who will likely simply carelessly breed more dozens themselves).

One of the chief reasons for this seeming chaos has to do with the confused nature of our understandings of exactly what ‘freedom’ implies, as I’ve said time and time again. Over time, ‘freedom’ has become thoroughly confused with ‘rights, entitlements, prerogatives and privileges’ in the average American mind. So much so that far too many have no conceptual awareness that ‘freedom’ actually imposes severe restrictions and social responsibilities on individuals in a democratic society. Those responsibilities include creation of children, driving responsibly, interacting with others humanely and courteously, and recognizing that even the most basic fact of life itself is a HUGE responsibility.

However, when this sad state of limited public awareness (read: basic ignorance) is exponentially amplified by such things as the avaricious ‘Hollywood’ mentality, an ethic that embraces and encourages irresponsible expression of wild, unruly and uncontrolled youthful excess…because Hollywood knows this formula will always ‘sell’...you have a rather serious problem that ain’t (SIC) going to go away anytime soon!

But, returning to the CCW frustrations being alluded to in ‘gun-safe California’, due to the fact that the state is so uniformly anti-gun across the board, and given that proficiency in gun use by owners is a requisite for ensuring public safety (both theirs and others’), even finding a convenient local range at which to practice can pose a substantial problem. Because ‘guns’ have such a negative image in the poorly illuminated chambers of liberal left progressive awareness, tremendous civic pressure is put on keeping gun ranges as far away from cities as possible. This often translates to inordinate difficulty getting in the range practice that is a necessary component of assuring that permitted gun carriers are proficient enough to use and operate their weapons safely.

All this may sound like small-potatoes complaining, but believe me, I’d much rather have legally certified and highly PROFICIENT gun owners around me than those who lack the basic benefits of regular practice. Far too many recent CCW applicants take the required course and immediately put their guns back in the drawer (or safe, or whatever), getting almost no regular range practice completed before it is once again time to requalify. That’s simply NOT an adequate turn of events. Again, we can thank the gun-shy leftist liberal progressives for their donkey-like obstinance in refusing to make compliance with both the law & common sense less problematic in this particular context.

Bottom line (if any)? Guns are most definitely NOT a useful social tool for conducting any sort of social interaction and they certainly are an increasing problem in gun-obsessed America today. That almost goes without saying. And as the Chicano drug-gang activity escalates (especially in California, but also in other ‘border’ states), it’s simply going to get a whole lot worse in the future, as the callous disregard for human life that has become ascendant in Mexico (due to drug ‘culture’) increasingly makes its presence felt in our state. Guns are not, however, about to go away any time soon and making it difficult for lawful, responsible citizens to obtain them (and be able to use them proficiently in extremis) makes about as much sense as encouraging stupid individuals to marry, breed and operate motor vehicles without regulation.

If that all sounds terribly pessimistic, take heart in the knowledge that my arguments are presented here in a highly aesthetic context, after all relevant aspects are considered, since in the bitter end NO ONE gets out of this world alive, anyway…